Taal v . Hannaford Bros. CV-05-82-PB 02/17/06 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Jai Taal
v. Case N o . 05-cv-82-PB Opinion No. 2006 DNH 023 Hannaford Bros. Co.
O R D E R
Pro se plaintiff Jai Taal alleges that her former employer,
Hannaford Bros. C o . (“Hannaford”), engaged in acts of racial
discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. On January 1 9 ,
2006, I granted Hannaford’s motion for summary judgment on Taal’s
pay discrimination, failure to promote and hostile work
environment claims. I also stated that I would grant summary
judgment on her retaliation claim if Taal did not provide, within
10 days, supplemental material that demonstrates a genuine
factual dispute as to that claim. Before me are Taal’s Motion
for Reconsideration of Summary Judgment (Doc. N o . 54) and her
motion to compel the production of wage records (Doc. N o . 5 7 ) . I
deny both motions for the reasons set forth below. A. Retaliation Claim
In her complaint, Taal alleged that Jackie Wozmac, an
assistant manager at the store, retaliated against her by giving
a negative reference to a potential employer.1 Compl. ¶ 9.
Hannaford contends that Wozmac told the employer to contact the
store’s headquarters in Scarborough, Maine, because she could not
provide a reference at the store level. Taal now claims that
Wozmac told her that the employer wanted to know if Hannaford
would hire Taal again and Wozmac “told them that she doubts it
but they should call our corporate office to confirm this as they
handle references.”2 Mot. for Recons. at 9. Although Taal has
not named the potential employer, she claims that she was offered
a position that was contingent on the employer “checking out” her
references and that she did not hear back from the employer after
1 According to Taal’s Charge of Discrimination filed with the New Hampshire Human Right Commission, this incident occurred in May 2001. 2 Taal did not submit an affidavit setting forth her version of this incident; however, her Motion for Reconsideration states “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing information is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.” Mot. for Recons. at 1 4 . Although her motion was originally unsigned, she subsequently submitted a signed copy of the motion’s signature page.
-2- Wozmac was contacted. Id. at 8-9.
In order to succeed on her retaliation claim, Taal must
demonstrate a causal connection between protected activity and an
adverse employment action. See Kosereis v . Rhode Island, 331
F.3d 2 0 7 , 217 (1st Cir. 2003). Taal sent a letter to Hannaford’s
Executive Vice President on January 9, 2001, complaining of
harassment and discrimination. Donna Desilets, the District
Human Resource Specialist, met with Taal and Debbie Hunt, the
office manager and Taal’s direct supervisor, during her
investigation of Taal’s complaints. Mot. for Recons. Ex. 9
(Desilets email). Desilets also spoke to Janice Yergeau, the
store manager, but did not tell her that Taal had complained in
order to protect Taal’s confidentiality. Id. On April 1 6 , 2001,
Taal sent a letter to Hannaford’s Director of Human Resources
acknowledging that her complaints had been addressed. Aff. of
Lisa K. Toner (“Toner Aff.”) Ex. E .
The record before me is devoid of any evidence linking
Wozmac’s allegedly unfavorable reference to Taal’s complaint
letter. There is no evidence that Wozmac knew about the letter
or Desilets’ investigation when she spoke to the potential
employer. Taal sent the letter directly to Hannaford executives
-3- in Maine and Desilets made an effort to keep Taal’s complaints
confidential by not revealing the letter’s contents to the store
manager. Wozmac was an assistant manager at the store and there
is no basis for inferring that Wozmac would have known about
Taal’s complaints when the store manager did not.
Taal also seeks to add a new claim that she was repeatedly
disciplined in 2001 and 2002 in retaliation for her harassment
complaints. See Mot. for Recons. Ex. 5-8. Taal was disciplined
numerous times prior to sending her complaint letter; in fact,
her letter mentions that she had been “written up” on several
occasions. Toner Aff. Ex. A at 2 . Taal has not presented any
evidence, other than her own subjective beliefs and unsupported
conclusions, that the disciplinary actions were unwarranted or
resulted from her complaints of discrimination. I thus conclude
that Hannaford is entitled to summary judgment on her retaliation
claim.
B. Reconsideration of Other Claims
My consideration of Taal’s motion on her other § 1981 claims
is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
Rule 59(e) allows a party to direct the district court’s attention to newly discovered material evidence or a manifest error of law or fact and enables the
-4- court to correct its own errors and thus avoid unnecessary appellate procedures. The rule does not provide a vehicle for a party to undo its own procedural failures, and it certainly does not allow a party to introduce new evidence or advance arguments that could and should have been presented to the district court prior to the judgment.
Aybar v . Crispin-Reyes, 118 F.3d 1 0 , 16 (1st Cir. 1997)
(quotation omitted).
1. Failure to promote
Taal alleges that Hannaford promoted “less qualified”
employees to positions that were never advertised. Mot. for
Recons. at 1 . Taal has not presented any admissible evidence to
support this claim; instead, she asks me to draw inferences from
Hannaford’s inability to produce job postings for the alleged
promotions. Taal’s allegations are insufficient to establish a
prima facie case of disparate treatment based on failure to
promote. See Rathbun v . Autozone, Inc., 361 F.3d 6 2 , 71 (1st
Cir. 2004).
2. Hostile work environment
In my previous Order I concluded that Taal’s hostile work
environment claim is time barred because she failed to present
any evidence of harassing incidents that occurred during the
-5- limitations period. Taal now argues that the following occurred
after March 1 5 , 2001: (1) Desilets’s investigation was a
conspiracy to cover up the stuffed monkey incident and retaliate
against her;3 (2) on August 1 5 , 2001, a disgruntled customer made
offensive, derogatory comments to her and Hannaford did not
“protect [her] against such abuse;” and (3) the numerous
incidents in which she was disciplined in 2001 and 2002 “made for
an environment that was extremely hostile.” Mot. for Recons. at
11-13.
To the extent that Taal relies on new allegations of
harassment to support her claim, this evidence should have been
presented with her earlier pleadings. See Aybar, 118 F.3d at 1 6 .
Even taking her new allegations into account, Taal has not
demonstrated that she was subjected to “a workplace permeated
with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is
sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [her]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Taal v . Hannaford Bros. CV-05-82-PB 02/17/06 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Jai Taal
v. Case N o . 05-cv-82-PB Opinion No. 2006 DNH 023 Hannaford Bros. Co.
O R D E R
Pro se plaintiff Jai Taal alleges that her former employer,
Hannaford Bros. C o . (“Hannaford”), engaged in acts of racial
discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. On January 1 9 ,
2006, I granted Hannaford’s motion for summary judgment on Taal’s
pay discrimination, failure to promote and hostile work
environment claims. I also stated that I would grant summary
judgment on her retaliation claim if Taal did not provide, within
10 days, supplemental material that demonstrates a genuine
factual dispute as to that claim. Before me are Taal’s Motion
for Reconsideration of Summary Judgment (Doc. N o . 54) and her
motion to compel the production of wage records (Doc. N o . 5 7 ) . I
deny both motions for the reasons set forth below. A. Retaliation Claim
In her complaint, Taal alleged that Jackie Wozmac, an
assistant manager at the store, retaliated against her by giving
a negative reference to a potential employer.1 Compl. ¶ 9.
Hannaford contends that Wozmac told the employer to contact the
store’s headquarters in Scarborough, Maine, because she could not
provide a reference at the store level. Taal now claims that
Wozmac told her that the employer wanted to know if Hannaford
would hire Taal again and Wozmac “told them that she doubts it
but they should call our corporate office to confirm this as they
handle references.”2 Mot. for Recons. at 9. Although Taal has
not named the potential employer, she claims that she was offered
a position that was contingent on the employer “checking out” her
references and that she did not hear back from the employer after
1 According to Taal’s Charge of Discrimination filed with the New Hampshire Human Right Commission, this incident occurred in May 2001. 2 Taal did not submit an affidavit setting forth her version of this incident; however, her Motion for Reconsideration states “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing information is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.” Mot. for Recons. at 1 4 . Although her motion was originally unsigned, she subsequently submitted a signed copy of the motion’s signature page.
-2- Wozmac was contacted. Id. at 8-9.
In order to succeed on her retaliation claim, Taal must
demonstrate a causal connection between protected activity and an
adverse employment action. See Kosereis v . Rhode Island, 331
F.3d 2 0 7 , 217 (1st Cir. 2003). Taal sent a letter to Hannaford’s
Executive Vice President on January 9, 2001, complaining of
harassment and discrimination. Donna Desilets, the District
Human Resource Specialist, met with Taal and Debbie Hunt, the
office manager and Taal’s direct supervisor, during her
investigation of Taal’s complaints. Mot. for Recons. Ex. 9
(Desilets email). Desilets also spoke to Janice Yergeau, the
store manager, but did not tell her that Taal had complained in
order to protect Taal’s confidentiality. Id. On April 1 6 , 2001,
Taal sent a letter to Hannaford’s Director of Human Resources
acknowledging that her complaints had been addressed. Aff. of
Lisa K. Toner (“Toner Aff.”) Ex. E .
The record before me is devoid of any evidence linking
Wozmac’s allegedly unfavorable reference to Taal’s complaint
letter. There is no evidence that Wozmac knew about the letter
or Desilets’ investigation when she spoke to the potential
employer. Taal sent the letter directly to Hannaford executives
-3- in Maine and Desilets made an effort to keep Taal’s complaints
confidential by not revealing the letter’s contents to the store
manager. Wozmac was an assistant manager at the store and there
is no basis for inferring that Wozmac would have known about
Taal’s complaints when the store manager did not.
Taal also seeks to add a new claim that she was repeatedly
disciplined in 2001 and 2002 in retaliation for her harassment
complaints. See Mot. for Recons. Ex. 5-8. Taal was disciplined
numerous times prior to sending her complaint letter; in fact,
her letter mentions that she had been “written up” on several
occasions. Toner Aff. Ex. A at 2 . Taal has not presented any
evidence, other than her own subjective beliefs and unsupported
conclusions, that the disciplinary actions were unwarranted or
resulted from her complaints of discrimination. I thus conclude
that Hannaford is entitled to summary judgment on her retaliation
claim.
B. Reconsideration of Other Claims
My consideration of Taal’s motion on her other § 1981 claims
is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
Rule 59(e) allows a party to direct the district court’s attention to newly discovered material evidence or a manifest error of law or fact and enables the
-4- court to correct its own errors and thus avoid unnecessary appellate procedures. The rule does not provide a vehicle for a party to undo its own procedural failures, and it certainly does not allow a party to introduce new evidence or advance arguments that could and should have been presented to the district court prior to the judgment.
Aybar v . Crispin-Reyes, 118 F.3d 1 0 , 16 (1st Cir. 1997)
(quotation omitted).
1. Failure to promote
Taal alleges that Hannaford promoted “less qualified”
employees to positions that were never advertised. Mot. for
Recons. at 1 . Taal has not presented any admissible evidence to
support this claim; instead, she asks me to draw inferences from
Hannaford’s inability to produce job postings for the alleged
promotions. Taal’s allegations are insufficient to establish a
prima facie case of disparate treatment based on failure to
promote. See Rathbun v . Autozone, Inc., 361 F.3d 6 2 , 71 (1st
Cir. 2004).
2. Hostile work environment
In my previous Order I concluded that Taal’s hostile work
environment claim is time barred because she failed to present
any evidence of harassing incidents that occurred during the
-5- limitations period. Taal now argues that the following occurred
after March 1 5 , 2001: (1) Desilets’s investigation was a
conspiracy to cover up the stuffed monkey incident and retaliate
against her;3 (2) on August 1 5 , 2001, a disgruntled customer made
offensive, derogatory comments to her and Hannaford did not
“protect [her] against such abuse;” and (3) the numerous
incidents in which she was disciplined in 2001 and 2002 “made for
an environment that was extremely hostile.” Mot. for Recons. at
11-13.
To the extent that Taal relies on new allegations of
harassment to support her claim, this evidence should have been
presented with her earlier pleadings. See Aybar, 118 F.3d at 1 6 .
Even taking her new allegations into account, Taal has not
demonstrated that she was subjected to “a workplace permeated
with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is
sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [her]
employment and create an abusive working environment.” Kosereis,
3 Desilets’ email summarizing her investigation belies Taal’s claim. After recounting the office manager’s recollections of the incident, Desilets concluded that “[t]he monkey issue was complex, with basically three versions of events, and so was deemed inconclusive.” Mot. for Recons. Ex. 9.
-6- 331 F.3d at 216. Accordingly, Taal’s request for reconsideration
of this claim is denied.
3. Pay discrimination
I concluded that Hannaford was entitled to summary judgment
on Taal’s pay discrimination claim because she did not provide
any evidence that other employees were paid at a higher rate than
she was for the same part-time position. Taal now alleges that
five employees (Kim Hazen, Kathy Healy, Brooke Elliot, Cheryl
Gauthier and Karen Demers) worked part-time in the same position
and were paid on a higher wage scale. Mot. for Recons. at 5 .
She also claims that she was paid at a lower initial rate than
five unnamed employees who were hired on the same day that she
was hired. Id. at 7 . Taal filed a motion to compel Hannaford to
produce the wage records for all of these employees on February
8 , 2006, after I granted summary judgment to Hannaford on this
Taal’s motion to compel comes too late. In her first set of
interrogatories, Taal requested a copy of her own wage record as
well as those of six other employees, only one of which Taal has
named in her motion to compel. See Mot. for Recons. Ex. 2 ,
Interrog. N o . 2 0 . Hannaford objected to providing the employees’
-7- wage records for privacy reasons and instead produced copies of
the company’s wage scales. See id. If Taal reasonably believed
that the wage records might contradict Hannaford’s sworn
statement that the employees were paid in accordance with its
wages scales, she could have filed a motion to obtain further
discovery before the court rendered judgment on her pay
discrimination claim. As discussed above, a motion for
reconsideration is not the proper method to obtain evidence that
could have been discovered earlier. Accordingly, I deny Taal’s
motion to compel and her request for reconsideration of this
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Taal’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. N o . 54) and Motion to Compel (Doc. N o . 57)
are denied. Hannaford’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. N o .
38) is granted as to all claims. The clerk is instructed to
enter judgment accordingly.
SO ORDERED.
/s/Paul Barbadoro Paul Barbadoro United States District Judge February 1 7 , 2006
-8- cc: Jai Taal, pro se William B . Pribis, Esq.
-9-